Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

Nine lies about global warming
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Mar 1 14:26:18 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/lav2006forWeb.pdf


 
Posted: Thu Mar 1 14:52:55 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  listen,

I'm just saying,

if Bill O'Reilly had created An Inconvenient Truth, the majority of your posts would not be anti-global-warming-advocacy.



 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Mar 1 15:16:53 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  CriminalSaint said:
>listen,
>
>I'm just saying,
>
>if Bill O'Reilly had created An Inconvenient Truth, the majority of your posts would not be anti-global-warming-advocacy.
>
Really ? Because he is calling for debate on the subject of global warming.
He is not anti-global-warming.
Also I was not aware that the majority of my post were anti-global-warming. I was pretty sure I covered a diverse lot of topics with my threads.

The other side of that coin is that BOR and I are in agreement on most of the hot button issues, but not necessarily all of them.
You will certainly find me in agreement with BOR most of the time and almost never in agreement with Mr. Gore.



 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Mar 1 15:17:39 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  CriminalSaint said:
>listen,
>
>I'm just saying,
>
>if Bill O'Reilly had created An Inconvenient Truth, the majority of your posts would not be anti-global-warming-advocacy.
>
btw, did you take the time to read the link ?


 
addi Posted: Thu Mar 1 15:40:08 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The Lavoisier Group is a global warming skeptic organisation, based in Australia. It argues that the evidence for global warming is based on inexact science and that any policy responses, such as signing the Kyoto Protocol, would be too expensive for Australia's industry.

The group is closely associated with the Australian mining industry, and was founded in 2000 by Ray Evans, then an executive at Western Mining Corporation (WMC), who was also involved in founding the HR Nicholls Society and the Bennelong Society. Hugh Morgan, former WMC boss and head of the Business Council of Australia until 2005, delivered the group's inaugural speech.

Lavoisier is a fairly small operation, with under 100 members and an annual budget of around $10,000. [1]

In 2001 Australian economist John Quiggin wrote that the Lavoisier Group is "devoted to the proposition that basic principles of physics...cease to apply when they come into conflict with the interests of the Australian coal industry."
(sourcewatch.org)

are you going to believe these pinheads or...
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/links/ipcc.htm

the latest reports from a global group of scientific experts in the field.

no need to respond, hif..I know who you'll believe.
: )


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Mar 1 15:45:35 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>The Lavoisier Group is a global warming skeptic organisation, based in Australia. It argues that the evidence for global warming is based on inexact science and that any policy responses, such as signing the Kyoto Protocol, would be too expensive for Australia's industry.
>
>The group is closely associated with the Australian mining industry, and was founded in 2000 by Ray Evans, then an executive at Western Mining Corporation (WMC), who was also involved in founding the HR Nicholls Society and the Bennelong Society. Hugh Morgan, former WMC boss and head of the Business Council of Australia until 2005, delivered the group's inaugural speech.
>
>Lavoisier is a fairly small operation, with under 100 members and an annual budget of around $10,000. [1]
>
>In 2001 Australian economist John Quiggin wrote that the Lavoisier Group is "devoted to the proposition that basic principles of physics...cease to apply when they come into conflict with the interests of the Australian coal industry."
>(sourcewatch.org)
>
>are you going to believe these pinheads or...
>http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/links/ipcc.htm
>
>the latest reports from a global group of scientific experts in the field.
>
>no need to respond, hif..I know who you'll believe.
>: )
I would prefer to see the facts and science debated rather than read a quick Google on the authors.


 
Silentmind Posted: Thu Mar 1 17:57:53 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  hif, I read the entire article. And I have to say, I don't agree with it. Addi brings up a good point. The people involved with that group have a vested interest in seeing nothing is done in regards to climate change. They might lose money if emission targets are set in Australia. Of course they aren't going to come out and say "climate change is occuring."

hif, had you posted articles by world renowned scientists over and over again, I might be inclined to listen to you. But you post articles by people who have an obvious bias. The scientists that are usually involved with the debate don't stand to lose millions of dollars, or lose their jobs. And they seem to side with the idea that humans are causing significant climate change. I'm talking about scientists not on the payroll of a company that stands to lose millions, in the short term, if pollution controls are implimented. {and whatever you do, don't bring up the time article on global cooling, as it wasn't an opinion held by a majority of the scientific community at the time, unlike today in regards to climate change.}

Start giving me SERIOUS scholarship, not this bullshit put out by a special interest group. Then I might actually start to take what you're saying seriously. Here, I'll give you a start. Go to the IPCC, actually read the -full- reports. There is serious scholarship.


 
addi Posted: Thu Mar 1 18:14:31 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  been too long, silentmind. nice to hear from you again.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Mar 1 19:14:51 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Silentmind said:
>hif, I read the entire article. And I have to say, I don't agree with it. Addi brings up a good point. The people involved with that group have a vested interest in seeing nothing is done in regards to climate change. They might lose money if emission targets are set in Australia. Of course they aren't going to come out and say "climate change is occuring."
>
>hif, had you posted articles by world renowned scientists over and over again, I might be inclined to listen to you. But you post articles by people who have an obvious bias. The scientists that are usually involved with the debate don't stand to lose millions of dollars, or lose their jobs. And they seem to side with the idea that humans are causing significant climate change. I'm talking about scientists not on the payroll of a company that stands to lose millions, in the short term, if pollution controls are implimented. {and whatever you do, don't bring up the time article on global cooling, as it wasn't an opinion held by a majority of the scientific community at the time, unlike today in regards to climate change.}
>
>Start giving me SERIOUS scholarship, not this bullshit put out by a special interest group. Then I might actually start to take what you're saying seriously. Here, I'll give you a start. Go to the IPCC, actually read the -full- reports. There is serious scholarship.
>
Specifically what part did you not agree with ?
Were the facts wrong ?


 
Silentmind Posted: Fri Mar 2 00:21:48 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Well, I see a distinct lack of experiments. Citations. I see only seven for nine lies. He's quoting people, but not telling me where the quotes are coming from. No mention of the venue, be it a speech, or a paper written. I have no idea. Where these things are coming from, I have no idea.

Here's one

"It is now established beyond argument that this hockey stick is a fraud. The algo-
rithm which the authors used to process tree ring data not only produced the hockey
stick published and promoted by the IPCC, but was able to produce a hockey stick
from a series of random numbers."

But, he just states that. Not where it came from. Not who established this as fact. It might be true, who knows. BUT HE DOESN'T TELL ME WHERE HE GOT HIS INFORMATION. And that matters. He can only cite SEVEN fucking things. See, that would get you kicked out of most respected institutions.

Well, I'd have to say I disagree most with point 9. Its just utter bullshit. Its as if this cleaner technology doesn't require maintanence. Implementing new technology doesn't mean that massive unemployment will occur.

As I said hif, give me something from NUMEROUS (not just one) serious, respected, (and not affiliated with a company that thinks it'll lose money if controls are put in place) scientists. That have fucking more citations than points in their paper.


 
Silentmind Posted: Fri Mar 2 01:21:10 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>been too long, silentmind. nice to hear from you again.

I've been here. Just lurking. Wait for hif to post something like this.


 
addi Posted: Fri Mar 2 06:09:11 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Silentmind said:

>I've been here. Just lurking. Wait for hif to post something like this.

I'm glad you decided to step out of the shadows and post. I guess we can thank hif for that : )

you make some valid points above, but for those people doubting global warming I'm not sure the results of scientific studies will persuade them to think differently...they've already made up their minds that it can't be true.


 
Cherry_Moon Posted: Fri Mar 2 09:38:31 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  i've decided long ago that ifih had something snap inside of him and he has gone barking mad. so i look at the posts as something an insane person would think was sane. and i feel pity.


 
DanSRose Posted: Fri Mar 2 10:14:24 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  But why is there this ultimate rejection of science? Is that it is being seen as an alternative religion, instead of a process?
Is it a problem of lack of information, of lack of knowing what science is? That you can't just throw things at a dartboard? That if you are coming at a question with an agenda, it is both obvious and not science, and if it not is science, it has no value in the factual discussion as it is an opinion, and a weighted and directed one at that.

Just to be fair, science is the process presenting question from a previously developed hypothesis, proceeding into a series of observations, descriptions, predictions (which isn't that 'theory' word, but the hypothesis), experimentation with control and falsifiability, and then analysis and interpretations (Theory goes here) which leads to the verification (or not) of the hypotheses, retesting, and the development of further hypotheses.


 
DanSRose Posted: Fri Mar 2 10:17:55 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I meant "an ulimtate rejection of science" in terms of a large portion of the modern culture, especially when viewed by the deeply religious or the uninformed.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Mar 2 10:24:22 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Maybe someone would care to explain the science behind the ice age we're supposed to be in right now, predicted in the 70's by many of the same scientists now predicting the global warming catastrophe.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Mar 2 10:27:26 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>But why is there this ultimate rejection of science? Is that it is being seen as an alternative religion, instead of a process?
>
Who is rejecting science ?
The ones who doubt the computer models predicting a global warming catastrophe, and would like to see further studies, or the ones who would silence the opposition rather than debate them ?


 
~Just Imagine~ Posted: Fri Mar 2 10:52:38 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Maybe someone would care to explain the science behind the ice age we're supposed to be in right now, predicted in the 70's by many of the same scientists now predicting the global warming catastrophe.

I think I already did that one time
Don't feel like looking for the links, but i remember it saying this: (simplyfied)

Global warming, causes the ice in the north to melt, and this non salty water gets in with the salt water, wich can change the current, causing an ice age


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Mar 2 11:32:59 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ~Just Imagine~ said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Maybe someone would care to explain the science behind the ice age we're supposed to be in right now, predicted in the 70's by many of the same scientists now predicting the global warming catastrophe.
>
>I think I already did that one time
>Don't feel like looking for the links, but i remember it saying this: (simplyfied)
>
>Global warming, causes the ice in the north to melt, and this non salty water gets in with the salt water, wich can change the current, causing an ice age
>
Only in Hollywood does that happen.

The scientists that predicted an ice age back in the 70's were not talking about global warming at all.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Mar 2 11:33:23 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Silentmind said:
>addi said:
>>been too long, silentmind. nice to hear from you again.
>
>I've been here. Just lurking. Wait for hif to post something like this.
>
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Mar 2 12:24:54 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Interesting stuff here from
todays edition of Newsbusters:

Media Ignore Al Gore’s Financial Ties to Global Warming
Posted by Noel Sheppard on March 2, 2007 - 09:58.
As NewsBusters reported here, here, and here, there are huge dollars to be made from global warming alarmism. However, conceivably no one is better positioned to financially benefit from this scam than Dr. Global Warming himself, former Vice President Al Gore, a fact that the media will surely not share with Americans any time soon.

Yet, if America’s press would take some time out of their busy schedules covering the earth-shattering details surrounding Anna Nicole Smith’s demise, they might find a deliciously inconvenient truth about the soon-to-be-Dr. Gore that is significantly more fascinating and diabolical than anything likely to emerge from that courtroom in Broward County, Florida.

As reported by Dan Riehl (emphasis mine throughout):

Former Vice President Al Gore has built a Green money-making machine capable of eventually generating billions of dollars for investors, including himself, but he set it up so that the average Joe can't afford to play on Gore's terms. And the US portion is headed up by a former Gore staffer and fund raiser who previously ran afoul of both the FEC and the DOJ, before Janet Reno jumped in and shut down an investigation during the Clinton years.

Think Katie, Charlie, or Brian will be all over this tonight? Regardless, that was just the tip of the questionably melting iceberg as reported by Bill Hobbs in Nashville, Tennessee:

[H]ow Gore buys his "carbon offsets," as revealed by The Tennessean raises serious questions. According to the newspaper's report, Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management:

Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe...

Gore is chairman of the firm and, presumably, draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he "buys" his "carbon offsets" from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy "carbon offsets" through Generation Investment Management - he buys stocks.

Fascinating. So, as Dr. Global Warming travels the world in his private jet while spending 20 times the average American on energy for his home, all the time telling us its okay because he’s buying carbon offsets, he’s actually purchasing these investments from himself.

Furthermore, and maybe more important, Gore stands to benefit financially in a potentially huge way if more and more people buy into this junk science.

Isn’t that special?

Yet, it is not clear that Gore’s money is going to purchase carbon offsets at all. Riehl reported:

Here's a list indicating what it takes to make money along with Al. Funds associated with these companies have placed millions of dollars under Al Gore's control. And, as you'll see below, Gore's selection for the US President of GIM might raise a few eyebrows as well.

AFLAC INC - AQUANTIVE INC - AUTODESK INC - BECTON DICKINSON & CO BLACKBAUD INC - GENERAL ELECTRIC CO - GREENHILL & CO INC - JOHNSON CTLS INC - LABORATORY CORP AMER HLDGS - METABOLIX INC - NORTHERN TR CORP - NUVEEN INVTS INC -STAPLES INC - SYSCO CORP - TECHNE CORP - UBS AG - VCA ANTECH INC - WATERS CORP - WHOLE FOODS MKT INC

According to their own documents, GIM intends to invest in, or buy companies poised to cash in on Global Warming concerns.

Putting this in perspective, for years the left and their media minions have posited that George W. Bush started war with Iraq to benefit the company Vice President Dick Cheney used to run, Halliburton, as well as Bush’s oil tycoon friends. In fact, there have been times when you couldn’t swing a dead cat in any pressroom in this nation without hitting a reporter working on such a story.

Yet, as the former Vice President continues to plug global warming as a coming crisis in need of immediate attention, the same media completely ignore his obvious financial conflicts of interest.

No liberal media bias there.

However, as Riehl pointed out, this story is even juicier:

To add insult to injury, Gore chose Peter S. Knight, an old friend and colleague some are sure to recall, as the US President of GIM.

Peter S. Knight, formerly Managing Director Met West Financial, lawyer, Chief of Staff for Senator Al Gore (D-TN) from 1977-1989, and Campaign Manager for President Clinton's successful re-election in 1996, is President of Generation U.S.

This would be him: Reno Rejects Inquiry Into a Clinton Aide

Atty Gen Janet Reno decides against any further investigation of Peter Knight, Pres Clinton's 1996 campaign manager in connection with office building development in nation's capital; such an investigation could have led to naming independent counsel to look further into activities of Knight, who is also former top assistant to Vice Pres Al Gore.

Yes, thanks to Janet Reno, no one ever found out how $20,000 in stock turned up in an account for Knight's then 13 year old child.

Dispute over Democratic Party campaign-financing shifts to Zachary Knight, 13-year-old son of Peter S Knight, Clinton-Gore campaign chairman in 1996, who was given $20,000 in stock by William Haney 3d, chairman of Molten Metal Technology Inc; Republicans believe gift, which came after father was named chairman of campaign, was really payment to Knight, who had worked as $7,000-per-month lobbyist for company; Knight denies involvement in any impropriety; photo

Riehl accurately asked:

If Gore's motivation in pushing Global Warming is so altruistic, was it really necessarily for the already wealthy Gore to establish a multi-million dollar corporation in England to cash in? And given the history of Gore and Knight, are these people we should trust to drive a re-vamping of the world economy at the same time they're lining their pockets because of our much smaller carbon footprints?

Riehl marvelously concluded:

If Al Gore is successful with this latest scheme, Gore and his cronies are going to be much more $green$ than most of the earth. And the only green in this for you and me is the kind that accompanies envy as Gore trucks around on private jets putting dollars to offset his extravagance into a cash machine generating profits on the backs of the middle class with misrepresented science that doesn't deserve to be called science at all.

Meanwhile, a complacent media, rather than hounding Gore over his financial conflicts of interest, continue to shill for this conman’s junk science.

When you add it all up, this is a flimflam of epic proportions:

First, Gore sets up a company that will invest in other companies that will benefit from global warming alarmism
Second, Gore gets some Hollywood types to fund and produce a movie designed to scare the c-c-carbon out of the population
Third, Gore travels the world promoting this movie, while pushing the view that a cataclysm is imminent if the world doesn't immediately act
Fourth, an adoring media falls for the con hook, line, and sinker. Rather than debunking the flaws in the theories, the media promote every word of it while advancing the concept that Gore's views represent those of an overwhelming majority of scientists
Fifth, scared governments and citizens across the globe invest in alternative energy programs driving up the shares of companies Gore's group has already invested in
Sixth, Gore and his cronies make billions as they laugh all the way to the bank at the stupidity of their fellow citizens
America -- what a country!




 
J. Posted: Fri Mar 2 12:51:04 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
Please sum it up in 20 words, what is your point, Mr. hif?

*smile*


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Mar 2 12:58:45 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  suenos said:
>
>Please sum it up in 20 words, what is your point, Mr. hif?
>
>*smile*
>
No point really, just trying to make a little small talk.
:-)


 
Silentmind Posted: Fri Mar 2 20:31:58 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  hif, I've stated before, in another discussion I believe, that Gore has no place in this discussion. He doesn't have the qualifications, and I nearly choked when he got the oscar. And hif, if you read what I posted above, and I'll quote it again, just to make sure you actually read it.

"{and whatever you do, don't bring up the time article on global cooling, as it wasn't an opinion held by a majority of the scientific community at the time, unlike today in regards to climate change}" [I'll admit to one mistake, it wasn't time, it was newsweek, my apologies]


Did I call it or did I call it. 9 posts later, and hif brings it out. I think I should become psychic or something.

And in regards to what you're going to say next. Global cooling was explored in the 70's. But the science of the climate was not as developed as it is today. We have a far greater knowledge of the way climate works. The scientific community has revised its opinion.

And hif, you still haven't addressed the issue of the bias of the authors of the original article. I'm curious as to your response.


 
addi Posted: Fri Mar 2 20:59:25 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Silentmind said:
>hif, I've stated before, in another discussion I believe, that Gore has no place in this discussion.

that's like saying Bono has no place in a discussion about the AIDS problem in Africa.
Is he a doctor that can fully understand and do research on a cure? No.
Is he knowledgable on the topic and bringing it to the forefront of current issues that need to be dealt with?
Yes.

The same can be said for Gore (and he'd agree with you). He's not an environmental scientist and has never claimed to be one.
He is however very knowledgable on the topic of global warming and has made a huge effort to bring together qualified environmental scientists (using their research) to bring this issue to the forefront.

That makes him qualified to join this discussion.


 
Silentmind Posted: Fri Mar 2 21:20:41 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi, I've gotta disagree. What Gore is saying is right. But he's not the one to be saying it. This discussion needs to be scientific. He makes brings the discussion out of the realm of science. Look, there was an article recently about how much he spends on his electricity. Its to easy for anyone to attack Gore and make the discussion about him.

It needs to be a scientific discussion. The people who do the research, who devote their lives to this should be the ones speaking. Then its about the research and the science, instead of the person.

And bono, he's a fucking idiot. Its a stunt. His product red crap. 10 bucks from the special iPod. If you gave a fuck, you would skip the iPod, and you'd give the 200 you would have spent directly to a charity. Bono gets meetings with top world leaders because its a good photo op. The people who actually have the knowledge often can't.And bono doesn't change anything. It makes people feel good, thats all. It makes the world leaders feel good about themselves, it probably makes bono sleep at night. But it doesn't change a god damn thing. Its a real good way to sell his records. This is a world celebrity culture. The people who are famous have more say than the people who actually spend their lives dedicating themselves to understanding the issue. But thats another story.


 
addi Posted: Fri Mar 2 21:34:56 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  then we'll agree to disagree : )

right or wrong about Bono you or I aren't in any position to judge the purity of his motives on the AIDS issues. What I can say is that he has helped (just one of several prominant people) to bring a critical issue to the rest of the world. That is a good thing, even if you may believe he's only doing it for personal glory or selfish reasons.

Every good cause needs a spokesperson to bring its message to the world. Environmental scientists do the important (and factual) grunt work on the issue of global warming. Gore takes their message to the masses. I have never once heard him say "I conducted this research. These are the results I found". He is serving as the vessel, or mouthpiece, to promote the necessity of taking action on this critical matter.
I don't see that as something to deride him about.






 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Mar 2 21:41:16 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Silentmind said:
>"{and whatever you do, don't bring up the time article on global cooling, as it wasn't an opinion held by a majority of the scientific community at the time, unlike today in regards to climate change}" [I'll admit to one mistake, it wasn't time, it was newsweek, my apologies]
>
>
>Did I call it or did I call it. 9 posts later, and hif brings it out. I think I should become psychic or something.
>
Yeah, you're psycho alright.
:-)
>And in regards to what you're going to say next. Global cooling was explored in the 70's. But the science of the climate was not as developed as it is today. We have a far greater knowledge of the way climate works. The scientific community has revised its opinion.
>
We may have a better understanding of how climate works, but it is still a science in its infancy. Who's to say the scientific community won't revise it's opinion in another 20yrs ?

>And hif, you still haven't addressed the issue of the bias of the authors of the original article. I'm curious as to your response.
>
If you are going to omit lavosier from the argument because they have ties to the coal industry, then you also must excuse every scientist who depends on grant and research money from the argument. Where does that leave us ?

Al Gore must be in this argument because he is the face and voice of the global warmingists.
Without him, the average joe would probably not know anything about climate change beyond a 25 second blip on the evening news. Without Gore, there would not be astronomical sums of money changing hands to push this agenda and it certainly wouldn't have the clout that Hollywood brings to the table.
I am in agreement with you that he shouldn't be part of it, but whether you like it or not, he's the biggest part of the argument.


 
Silentmind Posted: Fri Mar 2 21:50:35 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I know hif. And please stop calling it global warming. Its a misnomer. Its called climate change. And I pride myself on being a psycho psychic. And hif, it matters who they get the grant research from. The gov't, usually doesn't care what conclusion a scientist comes to. Same with grants from a university. But, if the grant comes from a coal company, or an auto maker, you have to start questioning.


 
Silentmind Posted: Sat Mar 3 01:05:53 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Unfortunately, his position as a former democrat VP makes it easy for a right wing person to go "Oh, its Gore saying it, its some left wing nutjob, I don't care what he says." I dare say the same thing would happen if Bush Sr. was the person saying it instead of Gore. The left wing would say "What the fuck does he know, he's a right wing nutjob" Having him stand up there turns it into a left wing/ right wing political issue, instead of the scientific issue it is.


 
addi Posted: Sat Mar 3 06:50:09 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Silentmind said:
>Unfortunately, his position as a former democrat VP makes it easy for a right wing person to go "Oh, its Gore saying it, its some left wing nutjob, I don't care what he says."

For simple minded people that is true..sadly (and there are plenty of those around). But anyone with half a brain will look at the issue a politician is promoting, and not determine the value of the message solely from the particular party he/she is representing.
In recent times it's been those "wacky left-wing nuts" that have championed environmental issues for the most part, with the conservatives more often than not protecting the interests of big business.
Gore has been working on environmental issues since the early '80's, and in the beginning he was often a lone voice in the wilderness preaching his message. He is not a johnny-come-lately to this topic.
Saying he has no right or place to bring important concerns to the forefront just because he's associated with the "left" is unjustified and errant in my opinion.

Hif was right in this respect...if the issue of global warming was left to those scientists doing research on it we most likely wouldn't be having this discussion now...it would be buried on page 78 of "The Scientific American" magazine back in the April 1998 issue.

I can say with a very clear conscience that if George Bush, Sr. were the one championing this cause he would have my full support. I wouldn't dismiss the message based solely on my being a progressive in politics.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Mar 3 07:24:14 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Silentmind said:
>I know hif. And please stop calling it global warming. Its a misnomer. Its called climate change. And I pride myself on being a psycho psychic. And hif, it matters who they get the grant research from. The gov't, usually doesn't care what conclusion a scientist comes to. Same with grants from a university. But, if the grant comes from a coal company, or an auto maker, you have to start questioning.
>
So your saying that the grantor cannot have an agenda unless they are in opposition to your point of view ?


 
Silentmind Posted: Sat Mar 3 14:04:05 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I'm saying you have to look at whose giving the money to conduct the research. Say there was a study tomorrow that was released that said "Smoking doesn't cause cancer, prolongs your life, makes you look sexy, and saves babies." And the grant money was given out by a massive tobbacco company. Would you trust those results? I sure as hell wouldn't.

Now, if the same study came out and was published by an oncologist from John Hopkins, who recieved his grant from the hospital, I'd be more inclined to believe him, and take his research seriously.

The same goes for this discussion. If a report comes out that is funded by a think tank that is heavily involved in the coal industry, I'd have to question the validity of what they are saying. Now, if you look at a report that is undertaken by a large number of the nations of this world, written by the leading scientists in the field, I'd take it far more seriously than I would take the coal report. And the thing is, the governments are largely funding this study. {The IPCC one) Some governments stand to lose money (in the short term) and yet they have signed off on this. The two main organizations, the UNEP and the WMO, that were involved in this study are not going to dissapear if they come out and say climate change isn't true. The environment and meteorology are not going to dissapear if they come to the conclusion that climate change isn't happening as a result of human conduct. No one would lose money, or their jobs. Thats why you should consider that the "Nine lies" article is probably not as honest as the IPCC report.


 
redonelast Posted: Sat Mar 3 17:02:17 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  1. Yes CO2 is required to live, we breathe it out as well. And Yes it does increase the amount of plant growth, and is required by plants.

However, combined with the rapid deforestation going on around the world there is an excess of CO2 now in the atmosphere, not part of a healthy ecosystem. And we continue to increase our CO2 output, while deforestation continues. Crops do not use as much CO2 as forests do.

2. Well statistically speaking it's possible for monkeys to type shakespeare. It's a very remote possibility but provided the right set of circumstances it may happen. The same with all research, we consider results acceptable when the chances of it being random are very small. If you don't agree with that, stop taking any medication or driving a car because that's the basis on which they are certified safe as well.

And the temperature is warming on average, which means Australia may not see the highest overall temperatures during the 1990's, but the frequency of the temperature distribution is changing. Ie, more days above 30 degrees than the 1930's.

3. Ethics forbid us to increase the CO2 and see what happens. Similar to the way we cannot test if cigarettes cause cancer by forcing people to smoke.

Read that graph correctly, after 1945 (industrial revolution) the Temperature Anomalies are almost always above zero, ie always above normal temperatures. Whereas before they were below.

4. If there is papers that do not agree with climate change then you should have cited a few.

5. Science is still out on that one.

6. The temperatures are rising and things are melting. Which is why Canada is so eager to lay claim to the North. It will open up alternate shipping routes, an economic benefit, but if things are melting that means the sea level will have to rise, yes by the 10% as the ice is less dense than water. Which means things will get covered. The cause is higher temperatures, which is caused by higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.



7. It's a guess, assuming that things work the way we know. But we don't know everything, if we did, wouldn't have been here in the first place.


The concept is Climate Change, not Global warming. In fact, some places may actually get cooler, while others warm significantly. In their example they show the extreme temperatures of 1939

8. Yes, cold kills disease and higher temperatures will allow things to live on surfaces to survive that previously could not.

9. Jobs will be replaced with other jobs. In fact the spur to become eco-friendly is creating jobs, through more recycling, bio energy plants. It's a growing market, just ask corn farmers.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Mar 3 17:31:03 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Silentmind said:
>I'm saying you have to look at whose giving the money to conduct the research. Say there was a study tomorrow that was released that said "Smoking doesn't cause cancer, prolongs your life, makes you look sexy, and saves babies." And the grant money was given out by a massive tobbacco company. Would you trust those results? I sure as hell wouldn't.
>
>Now, if the same study came out and was published by an oncologist from John Hopkins, who recieved his grant from the hospital, I'd be more inclined to believe him, and take his research seriously.
>
>The same goes for this discussion. If a report comes out that is funded by a think tank that is heavily involved in the coal industry, I'd have to question the validity of what they are saying. Now, if you look at a report that is undertaken by a large number of the nations of this world, written by the leading scientists in the field, I'd take it far more seriously than I would take the coal report. And the thing is, the governments are largely funding this study. {The IPCC one) Some governments stand to lose money (in the short term) and yet they have signed off on this. The two main organizations, the UNEP and the WMO, that were involved in this study are not going to dissapear if they come out and say climate change isn't true. The environment and meteorology are not going to dissapear if they come to the conclusion that climate change isn't happening as a result of human conduct. No one would lose money, or their jobs. Thats why you should consider that the "Nine lies" article is probably not as honest as the IPCC report.
>
I wholeheartedly disagree:

It takes a certain kind of gumption to stand up to the status quo. Monday, February 12, 2007
By David Asman


Folks who challenge the mainstream media and popular culture are subjected to some of the nastiest insults and character assassinations. And such retribution is nowhere more severe than for those who take issue with popular views about global warming.

There are a number of very bright climatologists and meteorologists out there who believe that this century’s warming trend is neither critical nor man made. Now you can agree or disagree with these folks. But you can’t pretend that these folks are crazies or ill informed or just in it for the money. They believe that the models used by the “We’re all going to die!” global warming worriers are far too severe and fail to take enough natural factors into consideration in their climate models. For their audacity to take on the status quo, they have been censured, excoriated and labeled as lackeys for the oil companies.

So who are these folks? Well, it turns out that on the whole they are just a bunch of number-crunching scientists who have been doing their work for years for the love of what they do, rather than the thrill of celebrity status. They include (but are by no means limited to) folks like Oregon State University climatologist George Taylor, Alabama State climatologist John Christy, Colorado State climatologist William Gray and Alabama meteorologist James Spann.

Mr. Spann was particularly upset with the charge that only those with ties to big oil could argue the way he and his colleagues do. In fact, he says, the truth is exactly the opposite: “Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon … Nothing wrong with making money at all. But when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab.” Click here to read the entire blog.

Mr. Spann’s suspicions were born out in a terrific bit of investigative journalism by two of my own colleagues here at FOX News, George Russell and Claudia Rosett. In the course of investigating a high United Nations official, one who has become something of a hero to the global warming worriers, they found that the official’s motivations may not have been entirely altruistic. Click here to read their full report.

Maurice Strong is a founding director of the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP), a division of the U.N. that has grown into a bureaucratic monstrosity with an annual budget of $136 million. Mr. Strong left his post at UNEP in the 1970s but kept his ecological credentials and helped organize a 1992 environmental summit in Rio de Janeiro, which become the forerunner of the Kyoto Accords. While Strong has spent a lifetime parlaying his UN contacts into business associations, nowhere has he done so more successfully than with his ecological “credentials.”

Recently Strong has been spending most of his time in China, where he’s been linked, among other things, to planned attempts to market Chinese-made automobiles in North America. But his presence there raises some awkward questions for Russell and Rosett: “For one thing, China, while one of the world’s biggest producers of industrial pollution, has been profiting from the trading of carbon emissions credits – thanks to heavily politicized U.N.-backed environmental deals engineered by Strong in the 1990s.”

Could Mr. Strong be benefiting from deals that he helped put together while he was working at the U.N.? We don’t know. What we do know is that Mr. Strong is now on voluntary leave from the U.N. while questions are sorted out concerning a $1 million check that was passed to him by South Korean businessman Tongsun Park, who was convicted last summer in New York Federal Court of conspiring to bribe U.N. officials on behalf of Baghdad.

Now the Maurice Strong story, however it sorts itself out, is not to say that all or even most of the heroes in the global-warming-worriers network are spreading the message just to get rich. I’m sure that they are mostly good people who believe in their views just as sincerely as those on the opposite side. But the ad hominem charges hurled at global warming skeptics, particularly the charge that they’re just in it for the money, can just as easily be hurled right back at some very prominent proponents of the other side of the debate.

Billions of dollars have been invested so far in studying climate change ($20 billion from the Bush administration alone), and very little of that money has landed in the laps of those outside of the global warming orthodoxy. As weatherman James Spann says: “I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue.” The only problem is that would leave out an enormous number of scientists who have already cashed in on it.


 
addi Posted: Sat Mar 3 18:33:10 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  If the internet had been around in the early 16th century I have no doubt there would have been learned scholars posting scientific articles on the "facts" that the earth was flat. The vast majority of the educated scholars back then would know from the various explorations, and advances in geometry, that the world was indeed round. But that wouldn't dissuade the Flat theorists from scoffing at such nonsensical views.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Mar 3 23:33:56 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>If the internet had been around in the early 16th century I have no doubt there would have been learned scholars posting scientific articles on the "facts" that the earth was flat. The vast majority of the educated scholars back then would know from the various explorations, and advances in geometry, that the world was indeed round. But that wouldn't dissuade the Flat theorists from scoffing at such nonsensical views.
>
Yeah, this global warming thing is exactly like that.


 
addi Posted: Sun Mar 4 07:21:01 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Yeah, this global warming thing is exactly like that.

no...actually they're not exactly alike.
It's an analogy, a literary devise comparing similaries between two things that are dissimilar, with the idea of explaining something unknown by something known.

: )


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Mar 4 08:21:02 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>Yeah, this global warming thing is exactly like that.
>
>no...actually they're not exactly alike.
>It's an analogy, a literary devise comparing similaries between two things that are dissimilar, with the idea of explaining something unknown by something known.
>
Oh you mean like if had today's press coverage during WW2, it would be something like:
ANNOUNCER: According to Pentagon sources, this now brings the official total of Americans killed overseas to 250,000. Congresswoman and House leader Ancy Lagosi took time out from her reelection campaign to mark the occasion.

REP ANCY LAGOSI: 250,000 of our finest coming home in wooden boxes, for what? To support a lie. What has Germany and Italy got to do with Pearl Harbor?

CROWD: Nothing!

LAGOSI: That's right, nothing.

CROWD: Roosevelt lied, millions died. Roosevelt lied, millions died.

:-)



 
addi Posted: Sun Mar 4 08:58:31 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I think you're grasping the concept. However it would ring truer with a slight change or two...


ifihadahif said:

>CROWD: Bush lied, millions died. Bush lied, millions died.

: )


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Mar 4 11:04:53 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>I think you're grasping the concept. However it would ring truer with a slight change or two...
>
>
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>CROWD: Bush lied, millions died. Bush lied, millions died.
>
>: )
Now why would a WW2 crowd be saying something like that ?


 
addi Posted: Sun Mar 4 11:26:43 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Now why would a WW2 crowd be saying something like that ?

lol

maybe because they were "the greatest generation", and could see in the future
: )


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Mar 5 10:19:53 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
I find this link to be quite interesting:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=440049&in_page_id=1965


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Mar 5 15:50:01 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Wait, there's more:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]